[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: parted pre9
From: |
Andrew Clausen |
Subject: |
Re: parted pre9 |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:42:50 +1100 |
Hi Ethan,
> when i tried to create an extended partition on a pc98 label i got:
>
> (parted) mkpart extended 100 150
> You found a bug in GNU Parted. Please email a bug report to
> address@hidden containing the version (1.4.0-pre9), and the
> following message:
>
> Assertion (supports_extended || type != PED_PARTITION_EXTENDED) at
> disk.c:615 in function ped_partition_new() failed.
> Ignore Cancel ? c
> (parted)
>
> i assume pc98 does away with the primary/logical/extended sillyness?
Yes. I just added a prettier error message, BTW.
> also it seems that every partition you create in a pc98 label is
> marked bootable, and cannot be marked otherwise is this normal?
Yes.
> i also noticed when you create a intel partition table parted asks if
> you want to install the parted bootloader (if none exists) if you say
> no, parted will ask again on your next command (mkpart whatever) and
> if you still say no it will ask you again on the next command (set 2
> boot on whatever) iow it will ask you over and over and over and over
> and over and over again until you give in and say yes ;-)
Yes, I know! I can't think of a good workaround.
When we merge with partimage, there should be no need for the
bootstrap code (I suspect...), so this will go away, eventually...
> i can't reproduce the spurious Apple_Void creation anymore.
They still get created! BTW, corezion tested it with MacOS. MacOS
likes it :-)
> can you do anything to make `mkpart primary hfs 0.032 0.812' create a
> 1600 block partition instead of 1599? (0.813 creates it a bit over
> 1600)
Yes. s/0.812/0.8125/
> one limitation i found in the regular intel partition table editing,
> you cannot set the partition type with parted, it seems to try and set
> it for you based in the filesystem you choose but this won't always
> work.
When won't it work?
BTW: it is based on the file system AND the partition flags.
BTW2: it's MUCH better this way. 99.9% of users don't know which
partition type they should select (even those who THINK they do!)
The flags system makes it much more intuitive (and looks cute
in GUIs ;-)
> one albeit contrived example is `mkpart primary|logical hfs 20 30'
> which sets the partition type to 83.
Yes. What's wrong with this?
> however a less contrived example
> is RS6000 powerpcs or PReP boxes, which use intel partition tables and
> use a type 41 PReP Boot bootstrap partition, where a bootloader or the
> kernel is dded directly on it. (or some others use a FAT filesystem
> with a bootloader similar to the NewWorld ybin/yaboot setup) there is
> also BSD disklabel partitions, type a6 for OpenBSD a7 for NeXTSTEP,
> and many many others. i think parted really need to display the
> partition type (not just primary,logical,extended) and allow for it to
> be explicity changed.
This support can (and will, if ppl scream/care enough to send in
patches) be added. However, I can't see any reason to move away
from the FS & flag system.
> otherwise people will have to use the old fdisk
> just to fix partition types.
Not when we support all the (useful) types. I don't think we need
to support CP/M *grin*
> a way to set arbitrary types on mac
> partitions would be useful too IMO.
Why?
> can you change `set x boot on' to set the partition name to
> `bootstrap' for mac partition tables? i think this is better then
> leaving it `untitled'.
What if the user (or MacOS) gave it a different name?
> one idea i had about the interface of parted, what about making some
> commands optionally interactive? so instead of having to type `mkpart
> primary blah foo bar' over and over again, run:
>
> mkpart
>
> which then prompts for primary or logical, with default being primary
> (or logical if thats all that is possible anymore). then it asks for
> filesystem type, default ext2, then it asks start, then end.
>
> something like:
>
> (parted) mkpart
> (parted) mkpart> type? [primary]:
> (parted) mkpart> filesystem? [ext2]:
> (parted) mkpart> start? [5.001]:
> (parted) mkpart> end? [258.213]:
> (parted)
>
> just a rough idea...
Yep. This idea has already been suggested. Maybe, One Of These
Days, but there are so many more interesting/important things to
do!
> one could also run `mkpart --batch' where once a partition is created
> it immediatly starts over for the next partition, until no more space
> is left. mkpartfs could work identicly except for formatting the
> partition.
Don't like this idea. Too complicated. I prefer your "-" idea.
> this would save for alot of typing and allow for a similar (but far
> better) interface to fdisk. i personally find the interactive
> partition creation of fdisk to be quite convenient and allows me to
> partition a disk very quickly.
hehe, except it's broken when you make a mistake. You have to start
all over again.
> it would also be more consistent with
> the way parted itself works, as in you can run either:
>
> parted /dev/sda mkpart primary ext2 1 5
>
> or
>
> parted /dev/sda
> > mkpart primary ext2 1 5
> > quit
>
> what do you think? (not for 1.4 but maybe in the next version)
Ah. I see. Hmmm. If we had a proper lexer / parser, it would
be quite cute... One Of These Days TM.
Have to think about the interface a bit though. (Feedback WRT
which partition you're up to, etc.) All you Mac people have to
Think Different TM with your UIs, don't you! :p
> also you have my email address in the THANKS file but its wrong, im
> address@hidden not address@hidden (unfortuantly, someone else got
> `eb' ...) thanks for the mention though ;-)
Fixed :-)
Thanks for your comments :-)
Andrew Clausen
- parted pre9, Ethan Benson, 2000/11/11
- Re: parted pre9,
Andrew Clausen <=